Dad who pluggedprowler spurns deal

New York Daily News ^ | 4/08/03 | NANCIE L. KATZ

[kattracks]

A Navy veteran who shot an intruder in his toddler's bedroom decided against pleading guilty to a gun charge yesterday. Ronald Dixon rejected a deal that would have spared him from having to do jail time because he does not want a criminal record, his new attorney said.

Brooklyn District Attorney Charles Hynes initially charged Dixon, 27, with possessing an illegal weapon - an unregistered pistol - after he shot a career burglar he found prowling in his Canarsie home on Dec. 14.

Last month, Hynes reduced the charges to misdemeanor attempted weapon possession, which carries a maximum 90-day jail term. Hynes said he would only ask Dixon to serve four weekends in jail in exchange for a guilty plea.

Criminal Court Judge Alvin Yearwood changed that deal to a year's probation.

"After the people reduced the charges, this was put on for possible disposition," Yearwood told Dixon and his new attorney, Joseph Mure, yesterday. But the Jamaican immigrant declined the deal and left the courtroom without comment yesterday.

"That means he would have a criminal conviction, and that is a big concern to us," Mure said afterward.

Dixon gained widespread sympathy after he was charged with a crime. In a tearful interview, Dixon told the Daily News he could not afford to spend any time in jail because he was working seven days a week to support his family and pay his mortgage.

Originally published on April 8, 2003

[TLBSHOW]

bump

this stinks to hig heaven

[raybo]

If memory servers me correctly he did start the procedure to get the weapon registered through some sort of 'channels' for a fee but the process was not complete at the time of the shooting.

[demosthenes the elder]

thank you. very succinct analysis.

[Panzerfaust]

AllSmiles, consider it this way:
Many states allow you to have the a legal handgun if there is no reason NOT to let you have it, e.g. you are not a criminal, mental incompetent, domestic violence perpetrator, etc. In my adopted home state of Pennsylvania, you may keep a handgun in your home with no permit whatsoever. A permit is required only to carry a handgun.

As a former NYS resident, I held a CCW permit. This permit was necessary even to own a handgun. I had to show a need to have the weapon. The whole process was a hassle, and it was only valid in NYS but not NYC. Yet, NYC permits were good throughout the state. I considered this unequal treatment under the law and never entered NYC for the 30 years I was a NYS resident.

It is VIRTUALLY IMPOSSIBLE to obtain a legal handgun permit in NYC, unless you are very well connected or have the $$$ to get an attorney. Obviously, the burglary victim had a need to own a handgun, as the invasion of his home by a hardened criminal illustrates. He was simply unable to illustrate this need, to the satisfaction of the ridiculously high standards of the law in NYC. Look for a jury to throw this one out.

The DA can decide not to prosecute, figuring he won't get a conviction. They are trying to do a Bernie Goetz on this guy and I hope he fights it and wins. Contrary to your law and order drum beat, the DA has discretion and not all people are prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. Ted Kennedy is proof of that.

[TEXASPROUD]

"He showed irresponsibility in having that gun..."

He made a decision to have the means to protect his family. It's too bad this gentleman does not live in Texas, he would have been no billed by the grand jury and congratulated for good markmanship.
I have always had a hard time understanding the mindset of Yankees when it comes to self-defense. I have lived in the south and southwest all my life. I could never live in a place that would deny me the right to defend my family.
I have always wondered how much of an outcry there would be if there was a federal law passed that took away all the gunfighters from the politicians they guard. (Hillary would have a cow.)

[Atlas Sneezed]

"So in your opinion, each of us should decide which laws are stupid and disregard them."

That's what we already do.

Ever drive on a freeway?

Did you know that probably 80-90% of class 3 firearms are not registered (and the owners are felons subject to 10-year terms).

Most home improvements that require building permits proceed without permits.

People who buy things in sales-tax-free states and bring them home don't pay the required tax.

Many people don't pay tax on all their income, or take more deductions than is proper.

Millions smoke dope.

Millions have prohibited sex.

(get the idea?)

[boris]

Where can we send him a donation and/or more ammo?

--Boris

[mil-vet]

Stupid laws should be disregarded. Unconstitutional laws should be broken. Worth repeating!!

I'm in general agreement, although I was taught in a class called "civics", way back when it was taught in high school, that there are ways to change "stupid laws" - with the judicial system broken as it is, maybe this is foolish thinking, but I still hold out some hope that the stupid laws CAN be changed or deleted - sigh!

Unconstitutional laws....like not being allowed to own a gun except in special cases, e.g. insanity, conviction of violent crime, etc. (like another post says, "what part of 'shall not be infringed' do you not understand?"), are dangerous to the well-being of our representative republic and should be eliminated by whatever means necessary.

Stay vigilent, stay armed, never trust a muslim or a liberal, both being terrorists, differing only in weaponry and technique.

[stevio]

I'm glad he's going to fight this. More power to him.

[meyer]

BTW, does anybody know of a defense fund for this? Is the NRA involved?

[Zon]

You said the following: "You advocate that the government initiate force/harm and suffering against people that are minding their own business." Explain yourself.

Ronald Dixon was minding his own business when he shot a career burglar he found prowling in his home. You advocate that the government should initiate harm and suffering on Ronald Dixon and his family -- "Dixon told the Daily News he could not afford to spend any time in jail because he was working seven days a week to support his family and pay his mortgage." Dixon shot the burglar in self-defense to protect what he had rightfully earned. Dixon is minding his own business and you are a proponent of government to act criminally causing the Dixon family pain and suffering.

[demosthenes the elder]

"No man has a natural right to commit aggression on the equal rights of another, and this is all from which the laws ought to restrain him." -- Thomas Jefferson

Gee! Thomas Jefferson said that, eh? What does that have to do with the homeowner having violated NYS gun laws?

Are you blind, illiterate, stupid, or deliberately disingenuous? Let me spell it out for you: Your State's gun law, had this fellow followed it to the letter, would have restrained him from defending himself and his family from the aggression of another. Jefferson, one of the KEY Founders of this Republic, would have found your State's gun laws obscene and abhorrent. Is it clear for you now, AllSmiles?

[JohnGaltSpeaking]

Some attorneys are ok, however the vast majority give a good refernce to the old question

What do you call 100 lawyers at the bottom of the ocean?

A start

[cynicom]

Mulder

This father had a "MORAL" duty to perform. This duty has nothing to do with man made laws. One has also to believe that if the criminal had died from one blow, that the law would also be trying to punish the father for using deadly force. Once he performed his moral duty, he was in jeopardy from his peers.

[eno_]

The DA is using constitutionally dubious (to say the least) laws to put arm on a good man.

Why shouldn't this DA career be ended, and he and his family hounded out of town?

Nothing illegal, mind you. But people should remember it isn't just one step between the ballot box and the ammo box. It IS legitimate to make your position felt in unconventional ways.

[Hodar]

....so, by exercising his constitutional right to protect his family, he's gonna get hosed. Sure makes perfect sense to me(??)!

Oh, I agree that the NY has a very stupid, unjustifiable law. But it is the law. A reasonable person would ammend the law such that guns in the HOME are exempt (ie. license to carry). But, as post #15 pointed out; there are legal ways to have a gun in the home. The DA has a choice. Do his job and enforce the law; or ignore the law.

[merak]

Sounds like this DA is going to need a lot of luck finding 12 jurors to convict this guy of anything.

[Wonder Warthog]

"Great post. There are legal ways to do things, this man, unfortunately, decided to sidestep the law. So, NY has a choice, dismiss the law; or enforce it."

If it goes to jury trial, then those issues will be for THEM to decide, not "NY". "Jury nullification" is quite real, and has been done multiple times in legal situations EXACTLY like this. Of course, in most cases, the DA is not stupid enough to bring such a case to this point.

[mywholebodyisaweapon]

The phrase "I HAD to follow the letter of the LAW" sounds a little like "I was just following orders," doesn't it? I wonder what some of our colleagues on this forum would have us do when the LAW is passed and signed that we have to inform on political dissidents with whom we come in contact.

Too bad that some of our fellow freepers seem to treat the law as something that can be cavalierly changed at will like a "changing, breathing" thing rather than what is right (constitutional).